I'm new to this forum, but have been a audiophile for many years, that said I think the main issues with SACD and DVD-Audio was not software or cost related, it was the complex hardware configuration needed to use it.

If a single cable solution like the Denon Link was introduced when these formats were released, then maybe more people would of purchased these high-res formats.

This combined with a format war only succeeded in turning off the buying public and lead to its own failure, this same issue will happen to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats.

The point being missed here is most people want a simple solution to enjoy high-quality music, and are willing to pay for it.

I just purchased my first iPod and have downloaded some of my CD's that were just collecting dust, this has allowed me to reduce some of the songs I never liked, and enjoy the ones I do.

I was looking to purchase a very expense ($5200) single disk CD player with balanced outputs, but the iPod purchase changed my old audiophile way of thinking, I like the ability to carry my music with me, and when I received a "Free" copy of a low-res song from someone, I listened to it for a week, and decided to purchase the complete CD.

I think there's a fine line between a music company marketing an artist by offering a low-res song, and stealing.

The Cell processor while in theory is powerful, in practice it's actually not capable of what the 360 is. I've got many programmer friends and they all say the PS3 is a nightmare and the Cell sucks. Somewhere I saw a programmer for I believe THQ who does work on both post a detailed difference in capabilities graphics wise between the two systems and the 360 is hands down the superior. While the BD disc can hold more data it can't get the data off the disc as fast as the 360 can. The DVD drive in that 360 spins at speeds much faster than the BD disc. It's one reason the unit is so damn loud.

I wish I knew where that post was it's actually rather informative.

Still on subject most baby boomers did not know enough about SACD.

I know a Boutique store here who did it's best business in 8 years this last year. So they don't see a reason to change anything.

I disagree: The pipeling on the 360 is not wide band enough to handle the graphics data stream because HD on the 360 was an afterthought when MicroSoft realized the Sony PS3 was going to be full HDTV. And actually when I said that the PS3 was superior to the 360 I was not just talking graphics...have a look at the failure rate of the 360 out there in the field....that's what I'm talking about.

And I still disagree with you regarding SACD...it's the baby boomer who designed the SACD marketed and sold the SACD so how could you come up with such an unqualified statement? Ridiculous...the reason we did not buy in to the technology is that we were not convinced that SACD is necessary for sound quality. We did a double blind listening test of the same music on the same system at the 2003 CES show here in Montreal at the Delta hotel. The show was a sell out over the 3 days and was advertised to joe public. Almost everyone who attended the show was an average consumer. We noticed that only half of the people who came in and did the test could hear the difference between a SACD disc and a Chesky reference CD. Who would be foolish enough to start an entire CD collection over just for SACD or DVD-Audio? We started talking about the potential of these formats in 1998! That's almost 10 years ago. And if I am a baby boomer that means that I was in my 40's back then and earning enough to invest in one....which I did not. The Gen x's who were 10 years younger did not even care about this stuff...they were more interested in playing DOOM on the latest sooped up P2 Win98 machines!

I disagree: The pipeling on the 360 is not wide band enough to handle the graphics data stream because HD on the 360 was an afterthought when MicroSoft realized the Sony PS3 was going to be full HDTV. And actually when I said that the PS3 was superior to the 360 I was not just talking graphics...have a look at the failure rate of the 360 out there in the field....that's what I'm talking about.

You bought the Sony PR line that the 360 was designed for HDTV as an afterthought?

It was designed from the ground up for HDTV and it is why it is superior to the PS3 in HD Anti-Aliasing. I won't get into it because it's a really big deal but the whole "our pipelines are wider so it doesn't matter they have twice as many," among other supposed reasons for the PS3 to be superior in graphics are well Urban Legend. I've heard plenty of people talk about the PS3 being superior in graphics while being 100% totally wrong but too stuborn to admit the data out there is right. If you want back buffered upscaled game vs actual HD games that's fine buy a PS3.

Since most people had a PS2 they don't remember that XBOX 1 had the first HD games. Why have 720p games on your old unit when you're not even thinking HD on your new unit?

As for the 360 and its survival rating... MS did extend the warranty and they are really good at replacing your unit. I know because they replaced mine. The new batch of PS3s are built differently than previous units and either lack SACD or aren't backwards compatible. So I'd argue that the PS3 keeps downgrading, while the 360 gets quieter and more advanced (HDMI on all new units).

And if I am a baby boomer that means that I was in my 40's back then and earning enough to invest in one....which I did not. The Gen x's who were 10 years younger did not even care about this stuff...they were more interested in playing DOOM on the latest sooped up P2 Win98 machines!

Being a supposed DOOM player (which I am not; yet born in '64) I disagree with you. I was fortunate enough to listen to both formats at their inception. And I think you've gone wrong in your insistence on focusing on SACD. Indeed, I was unimpressed with that technology when I heard it. BUT! DVD-A is clearly better sounding than CD's of any sort and noticably better than SACD. To leave out the superiority of DVD-A to make the point that well produced CD's are good enough is disingenuous.

This site has intrigued me for a while. But why are they so expensive? For example, I'm subscribed to www.yourmusic.com. They sell cds for $6.99 (free shipping). One album I recently purchased is Rod Stewart, Greatest Hits. On MusicGiants it's $12.90. Huh? Joe Jackson Greatest Hits, $6.99 on yourmusic.com, $15.29 on MusicGiants. Doesn't make sense to me. My flac rips from these albums are as good as these MG downloads, or not? Unless we look at the "Super HD" albums. Again, I'd love to get for example Dark Side of the Moon, but its $19.99...

And their privacy policy sounds a bit scary: "If you have registered with us, we collect information about what music files you possess on the PC you use to sign up with our service and any other PC's networked to that PC. We also collect information regarding where you obtained that music." ( http://www.musicgiants.com/default.aspx?p=privacy ).